a masterpiece of british cinema

Rating: Null/10 (21 July 2003)

well what can I say?? this film has been met with many mixed reviews, and here's my two pennies worth.
I'll take it for granted that you know the plot, so here's my justification on why this is such a great movie:
this film has the most intense underlying political commentary since Dawn of the Dead, the whole country eats itself up from the inside out, consumed by everything around it. Selfish, unabiding, terrifying. The film dictates something in all of us, rage. This time manifested in the "infected." The humans in this film have a harder time dealing with their own personal issues and the abuse of power around them than the actual "threat" that the movie concentrates on. Romero-esque cynicism is totally in place here, which boils us down to believing that we really wouldn't be able to deal with an outbreak of this kind. 28 days later takes the very notion of our pent up aggression, the way we are constantly faced with fear in our every day lives, and uses it totally against us. Terrifying. The film isolates us from all the things we take for granted, TV, Radio, electricity, water, etc, and boils down society to animal instinct, battling for survival at all costs.
The cinematography is first class, filmed entirely on DVCAM, with the "infected" being shown only in 16,000 fps (this gives the shakey "not-quite-sure-what-just-happened" feeling to things, which if you think carefully about it, is exactly the way violent/intense situations play out in the human memory). The long, drawn out shots of Jim walking through central london add tension to every second that you watch it (also notice that when Jim falls foul to the very rage he is trying to avoid, and the camera work adjusts accordingly.).
The characters are strong, unfortunately though Hannah was painfully miscast. Although a pretty and cool looking young lady, her acting skills leave a lot to be desired, and she really lets some of the film down. Selena is the embodiment of the "ripley-esque" female lead that we all know and love, while Jim is warm, funny and manic at the same time. Hannah's father (Gleeson) is amazing as the cuddly, friendly father who will protect his daughter at all costs.
I'd hate to sit here and write something like "the only people who didn't like this film are the ones who didn't get it" because that would be pushing this film into a catagory that it doesn't deserve. it is totally accessible to all, if you want violence, gore and terror then 28 days later doesn't fail on that. But unfortunately this film seems to be criticised because many people want answers to what they consider to be plot holes. To them I say: fill in the gaps yourself. The main reason I love this movie is because it stimulated my mind in a way that i haven't experienced since watching the Romero trilogy for the first time. This film is there to make you consider what YOU would do should such an infection start out, its there to let you fill in the blanks on what really happened in the 28 days leading up to Jim waking from the coma. its there to make you ask questions about the infected and to justify their actions in your OWN way. Don't leave it all up to Boyle or Garland, where's the fun in that? If you want answers watch a brain dead hollywood cannon fodder movie, because they have a nasty habit of making their audiences feel dumb.
28 days later is a movie that respects intellectualism, it wants you to question things and to question yourself because that is whats going to make you come back to it time and time again.
part of me truly believes that if an epidemic similar to this film DID break out, 28 days later wouldn't be too far from the truth.